Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Well, post-release, the cat is out of the bag: we'll be stuck with
>>> this whether the performance characteristics are acceptable or not.
>>> That's why we'd better be as sure as possible before committing to
>>> this implementation that there's nothing we can't live with.  It's not
>>> like there's any reasonable way to turn this off if you don't like it.
>>
>> I disagree; we're only carving in stone the FOR KEY SHARE and FOR KEY UPDATE
>> syntax additions.  We could even avoid doing that by not documenting them.  A
>> later major release could implement them using a completely different
>> mechanism or even reduce them to aliases, KEY SHARE = SHARE and KEY UPDATE =
>> UPDATE.  To be sure, let's still do a good job the first time.
>
> What I mean is really that, once the release is out, we don't get to
> take it back.  Sure, the next release can fix things, but any
> regressions will become obstacles to upgrading and pain points for new
> users.

This comment is completely superfluous. It's a complete waste of time
to turn up on a thread and remind people that if they commit something
and it doesn't actually work that it would be a bad thing. Why, we
might ask do you think that thought needs to be expressed here?
Please, don't answer, lets spend the time on actually reviewing the
patch.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services